Overthinking.

wayne wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

NAACP wrote:

"Relevance" comes down to nothing more than individual perspective. You can't say as one Be-ing whether something is relevant or not as someone else might think differently.

So, suppose that I say that I wonder whether the Sun rises in the east, or in the west, and someone answers, "well, I like vanilla ice-cream better than chocolate ice-cream". If he thinks that is relevant, he had better show me how it is relevant. After all it doesn't follow that because he thinks it is relevant that it is relevant. Maybe it is. But isn't it up to him to show it is? It isn't just because he thinks it is relevant that it is relevant. Although, he might be able to show that his liking vanilla better than chocolate is relevant to in which direction the Sun rises, it is up to him to show it is. His thinking that it is relevant doesn't mean it is any more than thinking that anything is true means it is true.

We all have those strange episodes of personal relevance from time to time.
Suppose that I am in the habit of eating vanilla ice cream each day at sunrise, and much enjoy chocolate ice cream at sunset. Perhaps such a response would seem relevant to my mind at first thought, however, if I were to think further I might think differently as to the relevance to others.

In the case you give, there is some reason to think your liking vanilla is relevant. But it is not just because you think it is relevant that it is relevant that it is relevant, is it? That's the point. The OP said that there is no argument about what is relevant and what is not, because if someone thinks it something is relevant that is enough to make it relevant. But that is false. The person needs (as you point out) to give some reason for thinking that why he believes is relevant is relevant (and then, that reason can be examined). It is not simply because he thinks it relevant that it is relevant. Right?

kennethamy wrote:

wayne wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

NAACP wrote:

"Relevance" comes down to nothing more than individual perspective. You can't say as one Be-ing whether something is relevant or not as someone else might think differently.

So, suppose that I say that I wonder whether the Sun rises in the east, or in the west, and someone answers, "well, I like vanilla ice-cream better than chocolate ice-cream". If he thinks that is relevant, he had better show me how it is relevant. After all it doesn't follow that because he thinks it is relevant that it is relevant. Maybe it is. But isn't it up to him to show it is? It isn't just because he thinks it is relevant that it is relevant. Although, he might be able to show that his liking vanilla better than chocolate is relevant to in which direction the Sun rises, it is up to him to show it is. His thinking that it is relevant doesn't mean it is any more than thinking that anything is true means it is true.

We all have those strange episodes of personal relevance from time to time.
Suppose that I am in the habit of eating vanilla ice cream each day at sunrise, and much enjoy chocolate ice cream at sunset. Perhaps such a response would seem relevant to my mind at first thought, however, if I were to think further I might think differently as to the relevance to others.

In the case you give, there is some reason to think your liking vanilla is relevant. But it is not just because you think it is relevant that it is relevant that it is relevant, is it? That's the point. The OP said that there is no argument about what is relevant and what is not, because if someone thinks it something is relevant that is enough to make it relevant. But that is false. The person needs (as you point out) to give some reason for thinking that why he believes is relevant is relevant (and then, that reason can be examined). It is not simply because he thinks it relevant that it is relevant. Right?

I can agree with that .

"Relevance" comes down to nothing more than individual perspective. You can't say as one Be-ing whether something is relevant or not as someone else might think differently."

Leaving off the first sentence, the second, at least appears true to me. We must, as you say, give reason to the relevance.
Actually, I don't think the two statements work together.
I think the first is false, the second appears true.

NAACP may have some kind of point, maybe- If all we humans ever know if life, then in some sense life can be said to be "infinite". the only experience we ever have is of life itself, we have no other experience, only experience within life, and so life can be said to be "infinite" in a subjective sense, although this does sound slightly odd.

whether we can be said to be the being from birth to death is contentious though; what constitutes being the same being throughout our lives? psychologically we are quite changeable, and even biologically we change over time, we digest food, of which part of that "becomes a part of us" is a sense, and so our being isn't fixed, neither psychologcially or biologically.

NAACP may have some kind of point, maybe- If all we humans ever know if life, then in some sense life can be said to be "infinite". the only experience we ever have is of life itself, we have no other experience, only experience within life, and so life can be said to be "infinite" in a subjective sense, although this does sound slightly odd.

whether we can be said to be the being from birth to death is contentious though; what constitutes being the same being throughout our lives? psychologically we are quite changeable, and even biologically we change over time, we digest food, of which part of that "becomes a part of us" is a sense, and so our being isn't fixed, neither psychologcially or biologically.